Local Government

Summary

Mr C made a complaint about the delay by the council in processing a retrospective planning application for a wind turbine that was built near his home. Planning permission was granted to build three wind turbines near Mr C's home. The third and final of these wind turbines was built approximately two years after the first two but was larger than the others. Mr C raised concerns about this with the council and was unhappy with their response, namely not to take enforcement action and to allow the owner of the turbine to make a retrospective application for planning permission. Mr C was unhappy about the lack of action by the council to remedy this situation.

The council explained that delays in the planning application occurred due to a combination of factors including staffing issues and delays in completing a noise survey. The completion of noise surveys was delayed for a number of reasons including inclement weather and the turbines requiring repairs. The decision was eventually taken to present the owner with the option to have the application determined and refused on the information available, or that they could withdraw the application and re-submit it in three months when the noise surveys could be correctly carried out. The owner withdrew the application and when the new application and noise surveys were not submitted as anticipated, the council began enforcement action. The owner complied with the enforcement action and arranged to have the turbine taken down. Mr C was unhappy with the council's response and the delays in this case and brought his complaint to us. We noted that when the council became aware of the planning breach, they responded within the appropriate timescale and requested further information from the owner's agent. However, there was then a delay of several months with no explanation before the decision was made that a retrospective planning application was required.

We took the view that deadlines should have been imposed on the owner much sooner than they were, with the council being overly generous in the time that was allowed to the owner to comply with their requests. The council could also have taken the decision to refuse the application on the grounds of insufficient information (or offer the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application) much sooner than they did. This would have allowed for alternative enforcement action to begin.

We found that the application was live for an excessive period of time and that there were frequent delays in action being taken. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, the council advised that they had taken steps to stop this from happening again in the future, including introducing regular reviews of staff caseloads. We were satisfied with this and asked that the council provide us with evidence of this. We did not make any further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C's father (Mr A) had been receiving a care package from the council's Extended Community Care Team (ECCT) when an assessment resulted in his recognised care needs changing. Mr C attempted to source a new suitable care package but struggled to do this and asked the council to assist him. Mr C rejected the care package the council offered. A few days later, he was offered the same care package and refused it again. Mr C was then also told that the ECCT package would have to be reduced and, the following day, that it would be removed altogether.

Mr C complained to the council that they had used the reduction and withdrawal of the ECCT package to force him to accept the care package he had previously rejected. The council stated that the EECT package was only to be used for a limited period of time and indicated that Mr C had been advised of this reduction and withdrawal prior to refusing the other care package. However, the council recognised that this information had not been made clear to Mr C at the outset and took action to prevent this happening again in the future. Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaint to us.

We found no evidence that the council had attempted to force Mr C to accept the care package. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the council had unreasonably invoked their unacceptable actions policy (UAP - a policy that outlines how an organisation will approach situations where the behaviour of individuals using their service becomes unacceptable, including any actions the organistion will take to restrict contact from the individuals concerned). Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that their contact with the council had been restricted in this way.

The council are entitled to apply their UAP in the appropriate circumstances and we are not an appeal route for that decision. Rather, our role was to consider their administrative handling of the matter. The evidence indicated that the council's letters to Mr and Mrs C had highlighted the behaviour that was causing the council concern, enclosed copies of their UAP and told Mr and Mrs C that their contact may be restricted if that behaviour did not change. As Mr and Mrs C's behaviour continued unchanged, the council subsequently wrote to them confirming that their contact was being restricted. The council explained that they would review their decision in three months, although Mr and Mrs C could also ask them to review the decision.

The evidence indicated that Mr and Mrs C were given a chance to modify their behaviour before the council invoked their UAP. It also indicated that, once the decision to restrict their contact was made, the council's letters contained the relevant information detailed in the UAP. On that basis, we concluded that the council had made a decision they were entitled to have made and that there was no evidence of maladministration in their decision-making process. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the council after her child (child A) returned from a school trip abroad badly sunburned, requiring a hospital stay. She complained that the council had failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that her child would not get sunburned, that reasonable action was not taken when the severity of child A's condition was established, and that her complaint had been handled unreasonably.

We found that a full risk assessment had been carried out and that pupils were reminded several times a day to administer sun protection. We considered that the council's actions aimed at preventing pupils from getting sunburned were reasonable, even though they were not effective in preventing child A from becoming sunburned. We were critical of a decision to allow the child to wear shorts and no sun protection when their legs were uncomfortable. The council said child A was only exposed to 30 minutes of sunlight on that occasion. With hindsight, we considered this to have been a poor decision, but we noted that sunburn was not yet suspected at that point and the main concern was the child's comfort. On balance, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

We found failings in the council's actions once the severity of the child's condition was known. Staff initially took advice from a pharmacist then later took the child to a local hospital. They took the advice of doctors at the hospital and also kept Mrs C and her husband informed until the group returned to the UK. We considered these steps to have been reasonable. However, the child was bandaged from thigh to toe and was unable to mobilise independently and in need of a wheelchair. The return journey home was 36 hours by coach. We considered that staff, who could see the condition child A was in, ought to have explored with Mrs C and her husband other options for getting child A home more quickly, taking into account the child's dignity, privacy and comfort. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

We were critical of the council's complaints handling. We found that they failed to treat Mrs C's complaint as a formal complaint, and failed to advise her of the their complaints process. We also considered that their response to her was lacking in empathy. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the poor handling of her complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Apologise to Mrs C, her husband and child A for failing to explore other options for child A to travel home once the severity of their condition was established.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The relevant staff should be reminded of the council's complaints handling procedure and re-familiarise themselves with how to apply it.
• Staff should be aware of the importance of providing an empathetic response to complaints.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the council handled complaints he had made.

Firstly, Mr C complained that the council unreasonably refused to investigate his complaints about a member of staff regarding the treatment of his son at school and the way this had been investigated. We identified that the council had already undertaken a number of investigations in relation to matters concerning Mr C's son's treatment at school and the way in which subsequent investigations were dealt with. This had included some investigation of the member of staff Mr C had specific concerns about. We considered the council's refusal to investigate Mr C's complaints further to be reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that, when the council contacted him to tell him that they would not be investigating his complaints, they said that they had 'comprehensively' scrutinised his complaints about his son's treatment at school, and the subsequent investigations. Mr C complained that this unreasonably implied that his complaints about the staff member had already been comprehensively scrutinised, and that this was not the case. We considered that the council were referring to matters more broadly, noting that the matters that they said had been comprehensively scrutinised encompassed some of Mr C's concerns about the member of staff. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Lastly, Mr C complained that what he considered to be the false implication above had been broadcast by the council to a number of parties in response to an email from him which he had copied to a distribution list. Given that we had not upheld the second complaint above, and had not found that what the council had said was unreasonable, it followed that we also did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of herself and other residents in the apartment complex where she lives. The council had decided that Ms C, and other owners of the property, were liable for emergency and statutory repairs to a drainage system. Over the course of a number of months several emergency and statutory notices were served in relation to this. Ms C complained to the council about the various actions related to the serving of the notices. The council were of the view that they had acted appropriately and had reached decisions reasonably. Ms C remained unhappy and brought her complaints to us.

Ms C complained about the process by which the council reached decisions on whether repairs were emergency repairs and which property owners were liable for the costs of the works. We considered the administrative aspects of these matters and concluded that the council had acted reasonably in this regard. We did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Ms C also complained about the administration of the notices and other correspondence to the property owners. We found that there were no significant failings in the council's actions related to this. We did note that there was a delay at one point in the council issuing an emergency repair notice to property owners, that owners had received invoices at one point which the council believed had been cancelled before they had been sent out, and that the council had incorrectly stated that a letter and report were hand delivered to each liable property. However, given the overall context and the volume of correspondence that the council had to deal with regarding these notices, we did not consider that these failings were significant enough to warrant upholding the complaint. As such, we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint, but we did make some recommendations.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to residents via the Proprietor's Committee that an emergency repair notice was not issued within a reasonable timescale, and that their statement that a letter and report were hand delivered to each liable property was incorrect. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Investigate how invoices that were believed to have been cancelled were received by owners, and take steps to avoid a similar situation recurring.
• Investigate whether an emergency repair notice could have been issued earlier and, if so, take steps to avoid a similar situation recurring.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about the licensing arrangements for licensed premises adjacent to their property. They requested a Licensed Premises Review hearing as they felt that the level of late night noise coming from the premises contravened a condition of the premises license. This review was considered by the licensing board. Mr and Mrs C complained about the actions of the licensing standards officer and the clerk to the licensing board prior to a licensing board meeting to consider the review. This meeting related to changes to the operation of the premises. We found that the council were unable to provide documentation to evidence that the administrative process of approval for these changes of operation had been followed. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Mr and Mrs C also complained about the Licensing Premises Review hearing and the information that had been considered during the review hearing. We found that Mr and Mrs C had been represented at the hearing and found no evidence that council officers had acted unreasonably in relation to the information presented to the review hearing. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr and Mrs C that the administrative process of approval for changes to the operation of the premises adjacent to their property had not been appropriately followed. The apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines onmaking an apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Licensing Standard Officers should document the administrative process of approval for applications for minor variations and the reasoning behind decisions.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained about the council's management of a multi-use games area (MUGA) near her home. When the council provided Ms C with their formal response they said that they were unable to reach a conclusion on whether she and her neighbours were affected by anti-social behaviour from users of the games area. They also promised some specific actions as a result of their investigations. Ms C complained to us that a council employee had given details of her complaint to other members of the public. She also complained that the council's decision that they were unable to reach a conclusion about anti-social behaviour was unreasonable and that, almost a year after their response, the council had not undertaken the promised actions.

We found that there was no clear evidence that the council employee had given details about the complaint to members of the public and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In response to our enquiries on their decision about anti-social behaviour, the council told us that there had been no indication of significant anti-social behaviour. We therefore concluded that it had been possible for them to reach a conclusion on that element of Ms C's complaints and we upheld her complaint about this.

We found that, in their complaint response, the council had said they would engage a specialist acoustic counsultant to undertake a further noise assessment and look into possible solutions to the noise. They also said that they would arrange for ball catch netting to be installed at the MUGA. We found that they had not fulfilled these actions. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The council should apologise to Ms C that they:
• unreasonably decided that it was not possible to reach a conclusion on whether Ms C and her neighbours were affected by anti-social behaviour from users of the multi-use games area;
• unreasonably failed to engage a specialist acoustic consultant to undertake a further noise assessment and look into possible solutions to the noise; and
• unreasonably failed to arrange for ball catch netting or any alternative to be installed at the multi-use games area within a reasonable timescale.
• The apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Engage a specialist acoustic consultant to undertake a further noise assessment and look into possible solutions to the noise levels.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about the way in which a social work review meeting, relating to his partner's elderly mother (Mrs A), was conducted. Mr C wanted the minutes of the previous meeting to be reviewed at the start so that he could raise points relating to that minute. This did not happen and Mr C raised this issue with the chairperson. Following discussions, the chairperson chose to suspend the meeting. Mr C complained that the council:

failed to reasonably address the genuine concerns raised by Mr C and his partner about inaccuracies in the previous minute;

unreasonably terminated the meeting stating that it was due to Mr C's behaviour;

unreasonably failed to obtain independent evidence of Mr C's behaviour at the meeting before responding to the complaint; and

unreasonably failed to confirm the council's policy on the roles and responsibilities of a chairperson when responding to the complaint.

We found that it was reasonable that a chairperson should be able to conduct a meeting as they saw fit, provided they met the purpose of that meeting. However, we considered that the chairperson should have clearly communicated how the meeting was to be conducted. This should have included reference to the fact that the previous minute of a meeting would not be addressed because the chairperson had not been present at that meeting. The chairperson should also have stated who would have been able to address any queries about the previous minute. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to Mr C's behaviour, we agreed that the council were not required to seek a second opinion from another person present at the meeting. We found that if a chairperson felt they could not carry out the purpose of a meeting due to the actions of someone present then they were entitled to suspend that meeting. We did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

We found that, whilst the council did not have a policy on how meetings should be conducted, it had an accepted practice. This included that the chairperson should read and make reference to previous minutes but recognised that this is not always possible. As the council does not have a policy on this, it was not able to provide Mr C with a copy. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C, his partner and Mrs A for failing to address the concerns raised by Mr C about the previous minutes. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C was concerned that the council had not reasonably assessed whether the structural stability and provision of natural light to his house met the tolerable standard in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act, and that the council had not reasonably considered whether to exercise powers under the Roads (Scotland) Act in relation to a footpath outside his home.

We found that no request for an assessment of tolerable standard had been made by Mr C, and did not uphold this complaint. We also found that the council had correctly concluded that the Roads (Scotland) Act did not apply to the footpath outside Mr C's house, as it had not been adopted by them and they were not responsible for its maintenance. We did not uphold this complaint.